Sunday, August 30, 2015

Dear Tools I See At County Fairs Across Ohio Displaying Confederate Flags:

Ohio tools

This "symbol" has nothing to do with your "heritage." We are Yankees--Ohio Yankees, which are some of your Yankier Yankees.
Hence, when you display this item, you're supporting ... what? Secession? Slavery?

More than 35,000 Ohioans died fighting against those ideologies and the Confederate Flag that represented them (incidentally, we won).

I'll tell you how I feel about this recent spate of sensitivity, on the part of the U.S. right, toward banners, monuments and grave markers commemorating the government and soldiers of the Confederacy.

I was born and raised in a small town in a Union state.

I remember my high school social studies teacher telling us that the rebellion of the south was not about the desire on the part of the wealthy down there to keep their source of free labor and free sex (Of course, she didn't couch it in those terms!) -- oh no, it was all about states' rights. I remember that, although she used the phrase "states' rights," she never enumerated any of the OTHER states' rights to which she had reference.

When I was in high school, our band always played "Dixie" at some point during our basketball and football games. Since we had no historical connection with the south, I can think of only one reason: It was to demonstrate to our darker brothers that we whites were in the catbird seat and any courtesy -- scant courtesy, in those days -- that we showed them was merely undeserved icing on the cake.

I cannot think of that time without a twinge of shame. I cannot be so ignoble as to desecrate graves of people who've been dead for over a century, but I don't feel a need to venerate them or the cause for which they fought.

I suspect that all of this highly-publicized, ostentatious reverence for things southern is less of high-minded pride and more of low-minded disdain of the sort that motivated our playing of Dixie in my hometown, back in the day.

2 minutes with Google is all you need but just for shits and giggles the flag most commonly reproduced is the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Down here in the Confederacy the Lost Cause folks take great pride in their ability to point out things like that.

You are right, dickheads will be dickheads. But trying to erase history, blow up Stone Mountain, remove flags from Civil War displays at civil war sites, unburying dead generals, or banning toys from bad 1970's TV shows is silly. Wiping history you hate is no different than blowing up old temples in Syria because you loathe what they stand for.

Assholes in Ohio waving the Stars and Bars is no threat, it is a very visible sign they are ignorant. Think of it as a giant "dumbass" sign.

And yes, Mr. Latin, the Civil War certainly was about States Rights and the power of the Federal Government. To believe otherwise shows you did not pay attention in history class or that you were educated in North Dakota where history older than 100 years is not taught.

I was referring to your comments about "wiping history you hate," which the right does with regularity, particularly regarding the civil war.

So, what's the bigger infraction? Taking down a flag (not that I know what you're talking about because [as usual] you do not include a link or any specific information) or teaching kids that that our country was founded partly on Christianity?

Religion was important to the Founders. At least four States were founded by those seeking the freedom to practice Christianity as they pleased. God is mentioned right there in the first couple of sentences of the Declaration of Independence. The Ten Commandments are carved into the wall of the Supreme Court Chambers and the President swears an oath upon a Bible. I'd say that it is true that the nation was founded by men with a basis in Christianity. Their religious beliefs played a part in the subsequent laws and governmental structure. But the U.S. Is not a Christian nation like Saudi Arabia is a Muslem nation. In fact, the Constitution not only proscribes a national religion, but guarantees each of us the right to worship as we please.

A textbook that claims otherwise, or similarly perverted history from Howard Zinn are equally wrong. As a parent you should help educate your children. Get on the textbook adoption committee of your school board. Take your kids to Stone Mountain or Fort Pillow and tell them the story of the Confrederacy and their defense of slavery (which they were prepared to abandon at wars end for British intervention). But advocating destruction of the Jefferson Memorial http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/conferderate-flag-jefferson_n_7656316.html is indeed trying to wipe history.

"The Ten Commandments are carved into the wall of the Supreme Court Chambers and the President swears an oath upon a Bible. I'd say that it is true that the nation was founded by men with a basis in Christianity."

Is that what you'd say, Joe?

I did not expect you to give an example of changing history in this little ol' comment section, but here we are. The Supreme Court Building opened in 1935, more than 150 years after the fathers did their founding. I'm surprised they didn't come back to life to kick some ass over the stonework on the front of the building.

I'm sadly confused why you are trying to argue with me when for the most part I have agreed with you. While the Founders and early settlers of many of the 13 colonies were very religious --and that means Christian ( you do remember the Pilgrims for instance) --the Constitution takes great pains to ensure there is no National religion. Despite your preconceived notions, I am perfectly good with that.

To my original point, the idiots waving the Stars and Bars have no idea what it stood for, or do and are racist asshats. But just like the KKK or Illinois Nazis, they have the right to show their ignorance, their hate, their assholery to the world. It is just a sign they are people I don't care to hang with.

The main thrust of this post and our agreement notwithstanding, you found a way to introduce Christianity and its supposed ties to the creation of the United States herein.

Sadly, your assertions were false and I called you out on that. Do feel free, however, to explain how references to the Ten Commandments on a 1935 building have anything to do with the beliefs of the founding fathers.

"You are right, dickheads will be dickheads. But trying to erase history, blow up Stone Mountain, remove flags from Civil War displays at civil war sites, unburying dead generals, or banning toys from bad 1970's TV shows is silly. Wiping history you hate is no different than blowing up old temples in Syria because you loathe what they stand for.

Assholes in Ohio waving the Stars and Bars is no threat, it is a very visible sign they are ignorant. Think of it as a giant "dumbass" sign.

And yes, Mr. Latin, the Civil War certainly was about States Rights and the power of the Federal Government. To believe otherwise shows you did not pay attention in history class or that you were educated in North Dakota where history older than 100 years is not taught."

That is my original comment. I see nothing about Christianity or founding fathers there. Perhaps you are so adamant to find fault you see what you want to see instead of someone who agrees with you here.

YOU asked me what I thought about textbooks in Texas. I asserted they were WRONG to claim America is a Christian nation. I was wrong to cite the Supreme Court building. It is however true that Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were founded as religious colonies. It is also true that God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence. I am not sure why you object to the notion a great many of the early colonist were Christian. If it is not true that Massachusetts, for instance was founded by Christian separatists I would like to know your source. Again, even though the founders had a strong basis in Christianity, they took enormous pains to make this a secular government. The First Amendment guarantees there will be no established national religion. It also guarantees each of to worship (or not) as we please.

"I am not sure why you object to the notion a great many of the early colonist were Christian."

I do not and never said I did.

Now then, who "banned" a toy from a 1970's tv show, Joe? Show me the legislation banning the toy. As for the states founded as religious entities, I have no idea if that is correct or not and don't care to verify it. I would like to just believe you, but so many of the things you say are grossly inaccurate.

As for revisionist history, saying the Civil War was about States' rights is woefully inadequate. Make no mistake, one of the biggest "rights" the Confederates wanted to retain was the right to own other human beings.

From the 1864 Rebel Congressional Manifesto: "It is absurd to pretend that a Government, really desirous of restoring the Union, would adopt such measures as the confiscation of private property, the emancipation of slaves, systematic efforts to invite them to insurrection, forcible abduction from their homes, and compulsory enlistment in the army, the division of a sovereign State without its consent, and a proclamation that one-tenth of the population of a State, and that tenth under military rule, should control the will of the remaining nine-tenths."

I certainly do not dispute that slavery was a main cause of the civil war and the right of an individual state to determine if they were a slave state or not was paramount to the South's position. The entire question was if the Federal Government could force States to be free or slave. That was the entire crux of the Missouri Compromise. I will gladly discuss the Civil War in detail as I have spent years studying it.

I would be pleased to read any sources you have that claim the U.S. Was not settled and founded by men of Christian bent. History is of great interest to me and I would like to read something that contradicts more than 200 years of popularly accepted history.

Yes WalMart among other retailers banned the sale of Dukes of Hazard toys under pressure. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138162/Now-General-Lee-toy-cars-Dukes-Hazzard-banned-having-iconic-Confederate-flag-roofs.html Or http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/24/no-more-dukes-of-hazzard-toys-with-confederate-flag/29210683/

One would have hoped that this topic were settled by now, because we have a confession from the folks who drafted South Carolina's secession ordinances. The documents mention slavery and/or labor, a contemporaneous euphemism for slavery, over 200 times. The documents contained precious little else.

Well well well .... welcome to the free market, Joe. People decide they no likey the Confederate Flag (although I do just love the softened euphemism Stars and Bars) and some big ol' retailers take it off the shelves. Then Warner Brothers chose to stop licensing it. This was not a mandate. There was no legislation or ban. This was not big gov barging in and usurping rights.

This was freely operating corporations operating freely. Comparing it to the antics of ISIS is (ahem) a bit beyond hyperbole.

I will concede I have picked on you in this comment thread and yesterday and the Goat and I were tooling around town, the reason why bloomed.

I saw a cartoon on social media the other day. One figure says, "I am not a racist, but-"

The other figure interrupts him. "STOP RIGHT THERE," he says. "Nothing good ever comes after that."

Which is exactly what needled me with your first comment herein, which was essentially saying: yes, these people are idiots, BUT THE LEFTIES ARE DESTROYING HISTORY JUST LIKE ISIS.

Which is what led us along this circuitous route that ends with a toy car.

I have not looked into the Stone Mountain thing or your vague claims that flags have been removed from ... wherever. I imagine there are two sides to those stories as well and you only see one, just like you call a completely optional choice of free market retailers and licensees a BAN.

As for your history credentials, I am afraid they were tarnished when you cited the 1935 Supreme Court Building's design as evidence of the Fathers' religious inclinations, which you seem to think I question.

"I would be pleased to read any sources you have that claim the U.S. Was not settled and founded by men of Christian bent."

Sorry, don't have any. I never asserted that they were not. Claiming to know anyone's real religion is risky territory upon which I try not to tread. You might opt to do the same.

A couple of points of order. I never claimed there was a legislative ban on Dukes toys. That was an assumption YOU made, just as you wrongly accused me of introducing The subject of the Founder's religion. Just as you cite how some Republicans are against programs just because they are championed by Obama, I think perhaps you see the image of old Race Bannon and immediately assume I am wrong and go into attack mode.

My original point never mentioned "lefties". Again you are letting your own bias cloud your position. There was no "but". Rather my point was that those idiots who wave the flag display an ignorance of history and so do those who want to destroy the Jefferson Monument, or remove the Confederate flag from displays at Fort Sumppter or blow up ancient temples. If I did not express that clearly then mea culpa. Perhaps you should have sought clarification rather than make assumptions.a simple " I have no idea what point you are trying to make" is far better than attacks for things I never wrote.

And the battle flag of The Army of Northern Viginia is commonly referred to as the Stars and Bars. It was not ever the Confederate Flag.

I continue to think it is possible to have a civil debate here. Once again I am sadly mistaken.

Hey Hoose, just as sort of an educational note as you seem confused over what a "ban" actually is, a "ban" looks like this:

The book had been given an R-14 restriction, which was later removed by the deputy chief censor, Nic McCully. When the age restriction was lifted Family First complained and the Film and Literature Board of Review placed the book on the restriction order, meaning it cannot be distributed or displayed anywhere in New Zealand.

If the order is breached, according to the Film and Literature Board's website, individuals are liable for a fine of NZ$3,000 ($1883) and companies NZ$10,000 ($6278).

You will have to take your etymology concerns up with the Daily Mail ( linked perviously) or Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/warner-bros-bans-dukes-of-hazzard-car-with-confederate-flag-20150624.

Hate to burst your bubble, but once again you are generalizing. Not all "righties" are for book burning. Nor are all even Christians. There is plenty of that book burning nonsense to go around. I doubt you want to compare censorship between conservative governments and leftist governments like the USSR or Communist China or North Korea? Those governments were not known for their tolerance and open-mindset.

Funny you don't use the ban of Animal FRm in the USSR as your example...

To judge from my teacher's presentation of the south's case for the Southern Rebellion, the continued existence of slavery vs. its abolition was the only issue that mattered to the slave-owing class. The way I see it, the term "states' rights" was introduced to superficially broaden the controversy without really broadening it beyond the core issue of slavery.

If the issue were to come up in today's political climate, who can say that abolition would not be denounced as "bad for business?"

Only a fraction of Southerners actually owned slaves yet went to war willingly and eagerly. Likewise many joined the Northern cause merely to "protect the Union". Feeling was strong in the Western States (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, southern Ohio, etc) in this regard. Many editorials, letters, and diaries from the time express the sentiment that if the war was about freeing slaves, they were not interested. There was a strong belief that freed slaves would take jobs at lower wages in the North. ( sounds familiar) A couple of Illinois regiments wanted to quit and go home after Lincoln signed the Proclaimation. Slavery was the premiere issue, the catalyst, but the fight was about bigger issues tariffs, trade, banking, the role of the Federal Government.

I shall stipulate that people's motives were as complicated as the complicated situation warranted. Even Lincoln was supposed to have stated that his main motive was to preserve the Union and that if that could be accomplished without the abolition of slavery, well, tant mieux. I do not know, though, if that pronouncement was sincere or just an attempt to assuage the sentiments of the rather large contingent of northern copperheads.

Had a guy tell me the other day the slavery issue was a ruse. Northerners had factories but ran low on cotton. South had cotton. Ergo The War of Northern Aggression. However given the advanced wordsmithing skill of our humble hostess I would like to propose an alternative label in her honor-"The Yankier Yankee Hankee Pankee."